Charter, every person deprived of his or her liberty has the right to live in detention conditions compatible with his or her personal dignity, and the state must guarantee to that person the right to life and to humane treatment. Consequently, since the state is the institution responsible for detention establishments, it is the guarantor of these rights of the prisoners.10 In the instant case, the Victim was detained for not more than forty eight hours. The African Commission notes the allegation of torture which (could lead to death) is addressed in its analysis of Article 5. However, it also notes that the Complainant has not given enough evidence that during those two days the Victim was facing eminent death. 132. The African Commission also notes the response of the Respondent state, in its rebuttal of any violation of Article 4, but will collapse some of its response under its analysis of the alleged violation of Article 5 since some of these responses speak to allegations of torture. Suffice it to say that in Communication 48/90-50/91-52/91-89/93: Amnesty International, Comité Loosli Bachelard, Lawyers' Committee for Human Rights, Association of Members of the Episcopal Conference of East Africa v Sudan,11 the African Commission stated that its long-standing practice, in cases of human rights violations, is that the burden of proof rests on the government.12 In those Communications, the African Commission had stated that if the government provides no evidence to contradict an allegation of human rights violation made against it, the African Commission will take it as proven, or at the least probable or plausible. But that should not be taken to mean that Complainants have a right to make unsubstantiated statements. 133. In the consolidated Communications 54/91-61/91-96/93-98/93-164/97_196/97-210/98: Malawi African Association, Amnesty International, Ms Sarr Diop, Union interafricaine des droits de l'Homme and RADDHO, Collectif des veuves et ayants-Droit, Association mauritanienne des droits de l'Homme v Mauritania,13 the African Commission notes that the November 1987 trial, which already violated the provisions of Article 7,_three army lieutenants were sentenced to death and executed. The African Commission stated that the trial itself constituted a violation of the African Charter. Furthermore, the African Commission was of the view that the executions that followed the said trial constituted a violation of Article 4. It also said that denying people food and medical attention, burning them in sand and subjecting them to torture to the point of death point to a shocking lack of respect for life, and constitutes a violation of Article 4. It also said that other evidences point to various arbitrary executions that took place in the villages of the River Senegal valley and stress that people were arbitrarily detained between September and December 1990. The African Commission considered that there were repeated violations of Article 4. In the instant case, the Victim was in custody for less than three days and at no time did he say he was facing imminent death. 134. Similarly, in Communication 25/89-47/90-56/91-100/93, Free Legal Assistance Group, Lazvyers' Committee for Human Rights, Union Interafricaine des Droits de l'Homme, Les Témoins de Jehovah v DRC14 , the African Commission had showed what could amount to a violation of Article 4. It stated that the Government of the DRC had violated Article 4 of the African Charter when 15 persons were extensively and repeatedly tortured by a Military Unit, on or about 19 January 1989, at Kinsuka near the Zaire River and also because of the mistreatment of several people protesting their mistreatment, after they were detained and held indefinitely.15 In the instant case the Complainant has not adduced sufficient evidence to show that the Victim was facing death. 135. The Complainant also alleges that the Victim suffered prolonged electric shocks in the mouth, genitals, fingers, toes and other parts of the body and that medical affidavits from among others, a government doctor, tend to support Complainant's testimony on this score. The African Commission will also collapse that statement under the Complainant's alleged violation of Article 5 which properly deals with torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and treatment. 136. International jurisprudence has also shed some light in the interpretation of the right to life.16 For instance in the case of Kaya v. Turkey (1998) at the European Court of Human Rights,17 the Court recalled that the obligation to protect the right to life under Article 2, read in conjunction with the state's general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to "secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms in [the] Convention", requires by implication that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force by, inter alios, agents of the State. The Court also observes that the procedural protection of the right to life inherent in Article 2 of the Convention secures the accountability of agents of the state for their use of lethal force by subjecting their actions to some form of independent and public scrutiny capable of leading to a determination of whether the force used was or was not justified in a particular set of circumstances. In other words in all instances, the right to life would invariably involve death or extreme mistreatment that threatens the life of the Complainant. 16